When you argue that children with Down syndrome are "special gifts" or that raising them is a "rewarding experience" for parents, you are appropriating their difficulties and fetishizing their difference. That is the opposite of respecting a disabled person. I get that who we are is shaped by experience and that many disabled people consider disability to be integral to their personalities -- just as I see poverty as a formative experience for me -- but I doubt they would have chosen to be disabled in the first place.

The piece veers into arguments involving the strain that disabled children cause their parents as well as the financial burden they place on society, but the overarching point is that abortion can be the best choice even for the child, and she bases that case on her guess that disabled people probably do not like being disabled. There's a lot that could be said about this, and Live Action nails the flaws in these arguments in a two-part post written by Nancy Flanders (who is the mother of a child with cystic fibrosis).

What I find most interesting about this essay is that it's an articulation of a commonly-held position within secular feminist circles, and yet it contradicts another tenet of their own worldview.

This was hit home to me when I clicked away from blog post above, only to come across this graphic just a few moments later:

The majority of persons in government who are anti-choice, are men. And none of them can get pregnant. The people who are making decisions that affect the lives of women, CAN'T EVEN GET PREGNANT!

And so, I want to silence the voices of all men. I am so tired of men giving their opinion about abortion. I am so tired of it that I am willing to sacrifice the voices of all the men who support women...Of course there are anti-choice women, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann being the two most prominent ones. I dislike them just as much as I dislike male anti-choicers, but something about a man, a person who could never fully appreciate the terror upon seeing a positive pregnancy test, a person who could walk away from a pregnancy if he so chose, a person who will never DIE in childbirth, something about him telling a woman that she should be forced to keep a pregnancy sends me into a rage.

It is that rage, that sense of complete and utter anger at a man telling me what I can and cannot do with my body that causes me to write that sentence, that causes me to want to silence all the male voices in the abortion discussion.

Naturally, I disagree with this premise. I think that standing up for people who don't have a voice (like, say, babies) is an issue that should cross all social lines, including gender. However, since the belief that men should not be able to speak out against abortion is so widely accepted within the pro-choice movement, let's take a look at the underlying premise behind this idea, and see what logical conclusions we can draw from it.

To use the points from the Abortion Gang post, men "can't even get pregnant." Given that they have never walked a mile in a woman's shoes, they could "never fully appreciate" the experience of pregnancy. Thus, the thinking goes, they should not push for women to make sacrifices that they themselves will never have to make.

If you accept these beliefs and the premises behind them to be true...then doesn't that also mean that you could never support able-bodied parents choosing to end the life of a disabled unborn child?

A person who has never been disabled has no idea what it is like to live with a disability. She understands neither the crosses nor the hidden blessing that may come with that kind of life. Even if someone has one disability, she still cannot imagine what it would be like to have a different struggle (for example, having spina bifida is an entirely different experience than having Down syndrome). What enrages some feminists about men opposing abortion is that men are suggesting that women make sacrifices; yet with "compassionate" abortion for disabilities, an able-bodied person is forcefully sacrificing a disabled person's entire life.

I would like to issue a call for pro-choice feminists to reject the intellectual dishonesty that currently plagues their worldview, and accept that the fact that they cannot simultaneously hold the views that 1) men cannot oppose abortion because they'll never know what it's like to be pregnant, and that 2) a person who has never known what it's like to be disabled can decide for a disabled person that he or she would be better off dead.

One of the two has to go.

Ideally, of course, I would like to see feminists reject the idea that men can't stand up for unborn life and the idea that it's okay to kill unborn disabled people. But since that kind of idealogical upheaval is probably still a long way off, it'd be a great step forward to begin with internal consistency.

Comments

Sounds like another bunch of specious arguments to pretend that only an individual woman has an interest in reproduction, and that society as a whole has no interest or role in the promotion and protection of human life, including the continuation of the human race. What a bunch of hot air. I’m really tired of these crabby women.

Posted by richard on Tuesday, Oct 9, 2012 12:50 PM (EST):

hello readers
all thanks to dr okoase for helping me to recover my ex back, i was serious in a breakup with my ex girl and i think all hope was lost until i was searching the internet and i saw a testimony that someone shared about DR OKOASE and i choose to conatct him also to see if he can still help me, i gave him a trial but at the end joy and happines full my heart, i have never believed in a spell caster because i have been a victim of fake spell caster, but DR OKOASE make me believe that their are still great spell caster like him, but i must say people like DR OKOASE are rare to see, that is why i must not go out from here without dropping the email address of this great spell caster who help me get my ex back, so reader if you are out there you are looking for the help of a spell caster you are advise to contact DR OKOASE on his email; templeofgreatspell@gmail.com once you contact him all your problems will be over.
RICHARD BENSON

Posted by Dawn on Sunday, Oct 7, 2012 10:19 AM (EST):

It is EVERYONE’s moral DUTY to be opposed to this heinous crime…regardless of gender!! Evil is evil, and evil must be opposed…to the greatest reaches of our strength to stand against it, and with the help of God!

Posted by patrick on Friday, Oct 5, 2012 7:59 PM (EST):

If feminists believe that the abortion debate does not concern men, then the contentious topic of male circumcision, should not concern, nor include women.

Posted by MamaTried on Friday, Oct 5, 2012 12:09 PM (EST):

Great article. I agree wholeheartedly. My concern though is that some of the vitriole coming from the pro-choice crowd comes from a place that is hurt and broken. It is certainly easier to do the moral, loving thing and raise your children no matter what abilities or disabilities come with them when you have had the benefit of the example of good parents and a supportive spouse. I had a child out of wedlock in my early 20’s and had it not been for the example of my parents and a supportive upbringing in the Catholic faith, I’m not sure how I would have responded when my boyfriend walked away shortly after hearing the news about the pregnancy. It was wrong for me to engage in a sexual relationship outside of marriage, but I can tell you how deeply hurt and angry I was when the other person responsible for the life of this child could leave and share none of the blame or any of the physical, practical, and psychological consequences. Many would place the blame entirely on me for the situation I found myself in, but I obviously didn’t get pregnant alone. Women who are married and find out that they have a child who will have a disability sometimes have to face raising the child alone because their husbands think they can’t handle being a good parent to that child. Sometimes even the husband’s family will support his decision to leave and start over with someone new as if his previous spouse was somehow unclean because she had a child with physical or mental problems. It’s tough doing the right thing especially when you have to do it by yourself and others who are supposed to be there to help you shoulder the responsibility want to shirk theirs—even “good Christian people.” Sure, a good Christian would be required to keep a stiff upper lip, suffer valiantly, and offer it up; but I wonder if those who choose to run really think about how their own poor witness is coarsening the fabric of human existence and cheapening the definition of what a follower of Jesus is. It’s hard to believe in Jesus if His followers don’t act like they believe and do what He asked of us.

Posted by Smoochagator on Tuesday, Oct 2, 2012 12:09 PM (EST):

The first quote is disgustingly arrogant and ableist, and it seriously makes me want to barf a little bit. I think that instead of barfing I’ll just go write a blog post of my own.

Posted by Jennifer on Tuesday, Oct 2, 2012 4:01 AM (EST):

It seems odd that men would not be allowed a say in the abortion debate, considering that most men have wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers who have to deal with these issues. My husband’s prolife views are very personal, because he loves me and our children. Why would I not want him to have a voice, when I’m the one he’s standing up for?

Posted by enness on Sunday, Sep 30, 2012 11:39 PM (EST):

JD, if you’re so rational why are you surprised to find Catholic theology on a Catholic website…if you’re so rational, why the arrogance? Why the need to dismiss several billion people as crazy? Why the need to pretend you know things that you couldn’t know? Why the need to crow about it so triumphally?
It was a long time ago…world’s not perfect…would bring its own problems…what in blazes has that got to do with anything?! You could probably have said the same things about Plessy vs. Ferguson, and yet here you are opposing racism.

Posted by anna lisa on Saturday, Sep 29, 2012 9:10 PM (EST):

@Zeke, I think Mark Shea is very eloquent in defending how we should recognize that other faith traditions can have varying amounts of truth. I think you can understand why for instance I might agree more with mainline Protestant beliefs than Scientology.
.
If my six -year-old asks me a big question, I obviously answer it differently, than I would answer my sixteen-year-old. Did Jesus need to do the same, when he addressed the crowds before him? Would he have used different imagery and metaphor for you and I?
.
I think you and I can agree that there are good people everywhere, trying to live by the golden rule. God alone searches the heart, and for some who have been granted more, more will be expected.
.
I am relieved that I am surrounded by great thinkers. My father is an accomplished scholar. Our table has always been lively with debate. I have always been encouraged to ask hard and pointed questions, and never to believe something thoughtlessly.
.
At one point in my life I did have a crisis of faith. It was a dark time for me. I can now see that it was a blessing, because it forced me to change as a human being. Yes, birth is agonizing, and that tunnel was dark! I see it as the turning point in which I learned to be an adult in my faith because I could no longer accept anything just because it was the “milk” I drank as a child. I am really glad that we again have a Pope who is a great thinker and intellectual who encourages us to delve deep, and ask questions.
.
Zeke thanks for being civil, you strike me as a good guy.
.
You remind me of a very bright friend of mine who is a struggling agnostic/Catholic. We were once discussing faith and he said something along the lines of: “The Christian faith is either the most magnificent and beautiful revelation about God, or the most magnificent and beautiful lie—that I wish more than anything was true”...Not exactly Pascal’s wager, but similar. He goes to mass every Sunday now. I was moved once to see him kneeling on the floor in the back of the church when it was too full to find a seat, amongst others who were standing during the consecration. I find him to be more intellectually honest than the people who don’t think twice about calling themselves Catholic, but who won’t bother to kneel if they don’t have something padded.

Posted by JD Hughes on Saturday, Sep 29, 2012 6:33 PM (EST):

“And we are all born with a huge disability, Original Sin.”
Hilarious. There was no Adam, no Eve, no snake, no Garden of Eden, and the idea of “original sin” is a very crazy religious concept.
“Unfortunately, my experiences with atheists hasn’t been so positive.”
Because they keep pointing out how irrational your religion really is? But it’s much better than Mormonism. Golden tablets? The Book of Mormon? Polygamy? Racism until 1978? Really crazy. And then there’s that religion on the other side of the world. Death for apostasy or blasphemy. Now that’s off-the-scale crazy.
“All the ‘reasons’ to defend abortion are thin gruel for liars.”
Hilarious. You should use the word “rationalizations”. And its root word is “rational”. Is abortion a “rational” choice? Always? Never? Should abortion be made illegal? In all cases? Rationality is difficult.
Roe v. Wade was a long time ago. This world is not perfect. You can try to change it, but actually changing the legality of abortion would bring a rather different set of problems.
Bottom line - argue against abortion on “humanitarian” grounds. That is what JF is trying to do here. But trying to use religious grounds is simply a losing battle.

Posted by Marie on Saturday, Sep 29, 2012 4:22 PM (EST):

“I get that who we are is shaped by experience and that many disabled people consider disability to be integral to their personalities—just as I see poverty as a formative experience for me—but I doubt they would have chosen to be disabled in the first place.”

If someone says “Given the choice, I would have not have chosen this disability for myself,” it does NOT necessarily mean they would have chosen to be killed. He or she might be thinking about living with the disability and living without.

I have never seen/heard a disabled person arguing it would be better to kill all disabled people - only healthy people seem to make that. argument.

Posted by Quo Vadis on Saturday, Sep 29, 2012 7:01 AM (EST):

The abortion apologists are getting weaker. Any group that asserts, ‘abortion is our right -no excuses, no apologies’, is at the end of the line, like Custer’s last stand. All the ‘reasons’ to defend abortion are thin gruel for liars. They lie to themselves, and get angry when this is pointed out.
.
I had a conversation the other day with a pro-choice acquaintance who declared that she would vote for Obama, using the wordsmithed ‘reproductive rights’ reasoning. I told her that I regretted not having more children at this juncture of life, and she responded, ‘but you could afford them…’ (I am an average income person.) God help us all - we have been utterly impoverished by abortion, as Mother Teresa asserted decades ago.

Posted by Carmen on Saturday, Sep 29, 2012 12:17 AM (EST):

@Kellyann: I was expressing outrage at the twisted “reasoning” abortion supporters use to justify their actions. Besides, I’m not giving anyone any excuses: I’m merely stating an unfortunate observation. And you’re right, weakness of character never excuses abortion, but it does explain it, and if we understand why people do what they do, then maybe we can address the issue better.

Posted by Kellyann on Friday, Sep 28, 2012 9:20 PM (EST):

@Carmen…”...real women do not desire the deaths of their children! Furthermore, abortion makes women slaves to men who know they can treat women poorly. Remember, it’s women who have to suppress their fertility and then possibly abort in order to keep their men. So not only are these women twisting their intellects to come up with inconsistent arguments, but they are rationalizing in order to justify their behavior for the sake of men who are creeps.”
While I understand your point, I believe that these statements give abortion supporters excuses to cling to. They should not be given the luxury of excuses. As permitted by law, if they choose to end the life of their child, then the very least they can do is stand by their decision - not behind all the reasons they “had to”. Also, all women are “real”. Only “real” people can perform abortions or consent to have their child killed. Some women choose to suppress their fertility; if they make that choice to “keep a man”, then they are weak of character. Weakness of character is not an excuse for murder.

Posted by anna lisa on Friday, Sep 28, 2012 7:58 PM (EST):

Zeke, I believe all of those groups you described above can be saved, so long as a true desire for good, and the good of others reigns in their hearts. Unfortunately, my experiences with atheists hasn’t been so positive. But hey, you and cowalker and a couple of others should be put in a separate group. I think you are “searchers”. “T.G.I.F” ;) Sorry if I came off as a jerk.

Posted by Zeke on Thursday, Sep 27, 2012 10:00 PM (EST):

Yes anna lisa, I’m the same atheist Zeke that chatted with you in the past, always a pleasure. I guess you could call me a Christian in post-denial, or whatever you describe someone whom has left the Church. Actually, I comment quite frequently here, with the hopes that Christians who read these posts realize that atheists are not that different than you. I wager that if we were to associate, you would scarcely know that we didn’t share the same morals and ethics by which you define yourself. Probably because we were both raised in the same culture and share the same values, though for different reasons.
-
However, asserting that I “don’t fit the atheist mold” is kind of unfair. Sure, there are trolls that comment here, or dislike Christians, but these people are generally idiots, and I assure you that I am not a hater. But when you denigrate those who don’t believe in what you do, you demonstrate your intolerance for other points of view. We would probably agree completely on why Muslims, Mormons, Hindus and Scientologist are totally in error about the nature of reality; what does this tell you? But because we disagree, atheists are somehow neurotic? Is that any more reasonable than me claiming that you are part of the Westboro “God Hates Fags” crowd because you all call yourself a Christian?
-
I don’t believe that Jesus was divine, but I do believe that he was a helluva human being. Do you think he would endorse the kind things you write?

Posted by Mike on Thursday, Sep 27, 2012 8:48 PM (EST):

I am going to tell my story. My mother told me my father wanted her to abort me pre Roe V Wade. So abortion has always been around. What has happened is that I have two children and five grandchildren with more on the way. When you abort a child, you wipe out and entire line of humans. It is like tossing a pebble in a pond, you cannot see the future. My wife is a descendent of the doctor on the may flower. Some of him lives in our children and so on. Surprisingly enough, in the choir a member was telling me he got tired of hearing about the abortion issue from the pulpit. I finally had it with him and said, ” So you think it’s ok to kill people like me ?”. That seems to catch people off guard. I put a face to the position. but you see, since I am a grown man, and not defenseless, they want to back off and not debate me. They are a little afraid, and thT seems to be how bullies are. They pick on the weak and defenseless. When they know they can win. That’s my story. In the business world, I have become a mentor and father to young men. When we talk about what is going on in their generation, the “hook up” culture. Most are interested in traditional relationships. One of the conversation turns to abortion, I have yet to find a young man that wants to marry a woman that believes in abortion. The thinking is that if she ‘d do that to a baby, what is she going to do to you when your old or sick?

Posted by Nayhee on Thursday, Sep 27, 2012 4:36 PM (EST):

@Eva: totally right. We should never provide a rationalization for “allowing” disabled children to live based on some perceived outcome. They have that right because they are a person, created with all the dignity of each and every person. Period.

Posted by anna lisa on Thursday, Sep 27, 2012 4:17 PM (EST):

@Zeke, if you don’t have any neurotic, pro-abortion relatives, I envy you. I also read the Catholic com boxes (no, not the atheist ones!) The angry atheists take on the flavor of a single troll who remind me of my mother-in-law…Angry…childish…vitriolic. (I finally was told what happened to my MIL, which does explain a lot, so I try my best to empathize with her pain.)
BTW, if you are the same Zeke I’ve talked to in the past, you really don’t fit the atheist mold. There are several like you that comment at NCR occasionally. You seem to me to be Christians in denial, that are in a bit of a funk, but you’re working it out. Just my impression anyhow…

Posted by Jonathan on Thursday, Sep 27, 2012 8:29 AM (EST):

The sort of reasoning that says “You have not and cannot experience X, therefore you cannot take a position Y”, is dangerous, and threatens to undermine common humanity and is opposed to solidarity. Interestingly, it is only used to silence discussion and never to promote it (as admitted by the more truthful proponents). One wonders whether, if I were to be pro-choice, whether my voice should be similarly silenced? It also seems to lead to the following arguments, of which I am sure those promoting such logic would often disagree, but on what grounds?

1. I have never experienced slavery - therefore, to oppose it is hypocritical, and I should remain silent.

2. I have never been a victim of racism, being white and male. Therefore, I cannot oppose racism, and should remain silent.

3. I cannot become pregnant, being male. Therefore, I should keep my pro-abortion opinions to myself. If I were a legislator, I should abstain from any vote concerning abortion, whatever my leanings.

4. As a man, I have no say in whether my girlfriend gives birth to our child. Therefore, I should not be forced to pay child support to a child who is not my choice.

Posted by Kathleen on Thursday, Sep 27, 2012 8:21 AM (EST):

Posted by James Kurt on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 4:03 PM (EST):A better analogy might be to plantation owners in the South telling those who don’t own slaves (especially in the North) to mind their own business.”
**
That’s exactly what they did. Thanks for bringing that up.Abolitionists were called busybodies & religious fanatics in their day, too.And some of them were, in fact, but that didn’t mean their message was less true.
Abortion,segregation,& slavery are civil rights/human rights issues.Because various peoples of faith have stood against these issues doesn’t mean they are only of religious concern.

Posted by dixibehr on Thursday, Sep 27, 2012 4:32 AM (EST):

“And so, I want to silence the voices of all men.”

This is what it’s REALLY about: silencing the opposition or anyone who is different.

How’s that for freedom of speech?

Posted by Joe on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 11:47 PM (EST):

U underestimate the power and will of God—with nothing being impossible to Him. I bet those who lived in the early 1800s thought the same.

Posted by Zeke on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 9:55 PM (EST):

anna lisa,
-
“Can you imagine how maddening the life of a pro-abortion person is? They are intent on securing pleasure and avoiding all risk of pain, yet they still live on planet Earth. They become like neurotic children trying to avoid stepping on cracks on the ground. Is it any wonder why these capricious children are so angry at God?”
-
Well, I’m not mad. Sure, I try to minimize risk and pain, and seek to secure those things that bring pleasure, such as family, friends, health, wealth and relationships, don’t you? Is everyone who isn’t pro-life neurotic, as you say? What reason is there for me, or anyone else, be angry at God? Or are these simply things you tell yourself to make it easy to demonize all who disagree with you, and paint them as pathetic creatures worthy of your scorn?
-
By the tone of these comments, it seems that pro-lifers have the more maddening life, only able to dream about a Bible-based theocracy in America, where abortion is banned for any reason, that they know will never come.

Posted by Liz on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 9:50 PM (EST):

Jennifer, I really respect and admire the way you write with passion and great logic. I get so fired up about these issues I can hardly form a coherent sentence. You provide a voice not only to the voiceless children but also to the tongue tied amongst you. Thank you!

Posted by Frankie on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 9:13 PM (EST):

Love must be poured out, emptied, self-giving. God bless all parents with special needs children (we all have special needs, don’t we?)

Pax!

Posted by Cha5678 on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 8:36 PM (EST):

Could also approach it from two other directions:
1a. What about a woman and her female child? To maintain their pro-abortion position, they must revert back to a ‘it’s not human’ argument. Therefore allowing all of humanity, even men, to recognize and offer insight to what is human.
1b. Or they’ll claim that both women - mother and child - should be free to assert their choice upon the other. The mother typically wins this battle because her weapons are more powerful. Then ask them if might makes right in other matters.
2. Equal protection. Ask them if women have this choice - an exemption to laws against murder and child neglect, what choice or exemption are men granted?

Posted by Eva on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 8:00 PM (EST):

If you say men can’t have any say about abortion because they cannot get pregnant, then infertile women should not be able to either. Nor should menopausal women, etc.
One slight qualm I have with this article, though, is that I do think that saying children with downs syndrome or other disabilities should be spared because they are “special blessings from God” or because raising them is a “rewarding experience” is a mistake. Raising them might be a rewarding experience or it might not be. Such children might be very special people or they might not be. But that’s not the point. Children with disabilities should be allowed to be born because they have an innate worth just from being human. The most fundamental human right is the right to life, no matter how much work for the person or for their caregivers the life might be.

Posted by Michelle on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 7:34 PM (EST):

“I get that who we are is shaped by experience and that many disabled people consider disability to be integral to their personalities—just as I see poverty as a formative experience for me—but I doubt they would have chosen to be disabled in the first place.” Does this mean that the author would have preferred to have been aborted rather than to have grown up in poverty?

Posted by SL on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 5:51 PM (EST):

My “godmother” (not officially since I converted) was disabled, but knowing her was one of the best experiences I ever had. Her courage, strong will, love for God, and support helped make me the Catholic I am today. If she had been aborted, the world and my relationship with God not be the same. I thank God for every day that she was in my life.

Posted by James Kurt on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 4:03 PM (EST):

A better analogy might be to plantation owners in the South telling those who don’t own slaves (especially in the North) to mind their own business.

Posted by anna lisa on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 2:46 PM (EST):

@Carmen, what you said reminded me of a young woman I used to know. She and her boyfriend were such a “beautiful” couple. Beautiful in the skin-deep way. She was all too aware of what she had done, after he took her in for an abortion. “I even killed for you,” she cried at him, when they were breaking up.
As for Downs kids? My Down Syndrome nephew is an ADORABLE rascal. I don’t know very many 17-y-olds who can live up to “adorable” either.
Mikey is an incredibly intuitive human being. If he senses an edge in my voice or can tell I’m flustered he says, “Mommy, chill out” (yes, he calls me Mommy too, which I consider the highest of compliments.) My sister knew he was disabled via an ultrasound in the fourth month. She is a former ballerina who now teaches dance at a studio which donates all proceeds to poor women. They do charity dance performances as well to raise money for medical supplies. All of her friends, some of them VERY liberal, understand why she won’t allow any of the funds to go for ultrasound machines, considering how they are now used as instruments for “search and destroy” purposes.

Posted by Joseph Q on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 2:45 PM (EST):

If we do not have the right to call ending a growing life in the womb “murder”, then who has the right to call robbery “stealing”, or an affair “adultery”.

Posted by JenniB on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 2:43 PM (EST):

God bless you all for this blog and your comments on it. I’m crying for joy because we all understand something profound that we must teach the world. Like Barbara I had all those experts telling me how Veronica couldn’t do this that and the other thing. Yeah, autism and auditory processing disorders provide challenges. But all is possible with faith, hope, and love!

That my baby girl is now 21 and engaged is a miracle. Pray for us as we and her medial=engineer fiance begin NFP training. Bring it on!

Posted by anna lisa on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 1:10 PM (EST):

Can you imagine how maddening the life of a pro-abortion person is? They are intent on securing pleasure and avoiding all risk of pain, yet they still live on planet Earth. They become like neurotic children trying to avoid stepping on cracks on the ground. Is it any wonder why these capricious children are so angry at God?

Posted by Carmen on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 1:10 PM (EST):

Great argument, Cassandra! Also, to go back to the 77% of anti-choicers nonsense, the reality is that the majority of pro-life centers are run by women, and women are the driving force behind the pro-life movement. The reason is simple: real women do not desire the deaths of their children! Furthermore, abortion makes women slaves to men who know they can treat women poorly. Remember, it’s women who have to suppress their fertility and then possibly abort in order to keep their men. So not only are these women twisting their intellects to come up with inconsistent arguments, but they are rationalizing in order to justify their behavior for the sake of men who are creeps.

Oh, and a last little tidbit I learned from research: the majority of women who work in abortion mills are lesbians. Now you tell me how a lesbian will ever fully understand an unplanned pregnancy, and I’ll tell you where the pro-choice logic went.

Hint: *Flush*

Posted by Fides et Ratio on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 1:00 PM (EST):

Thank you Mrs. Fulwiler. Once more you combine intelligence and charity to write a great article.

Posted by Cassandra on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 12:11 PM (EST):

You, as most, completely miss the better argument. Firstly, no one has an absolute right over their body. Don’t shy away from taking on the contrary assertion head-on.

Secondly, men are “victimized” more by forcible control over their bodies than women. Men have historically been drafted and ordered into combat and continue to fulfill that role today in the US. The fact that we *currently* use an all-volunteer military does not diminish the point since a) the vast majority of pregnancies result from voluntary sex and b) once volunteered does not mean that the soldier gets to pick and choose what they will do. Remember that trucking unit in Iraq a few years ago that tried to opt out of a convoy mission because they didn’t think it *safe* enough? Can you say courts-martial?

I would place a fair bet that not only by sheer numbers, but also by percentage, that more men once selected for service have died in combat than women in child-birth.

In fact, using the “interested party” argument from the feminist, I’m demanding that women’s right to vote be removed. Why should women be allowed to vote and affect foreign policy (and much less serve office) when it is men that will have to bleed and die to enforce US foreign and domestic policy.

It’s just not fair to men that women should be dictating policy that women don’t have to die for.

Posted by ChrisKABA on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 12:05 PM (EST):

Good point.

In addition, the claim that pregnancy gives a woman the right to decide whether she can kill her child against the wishes of the father is a demand for inequality before the law.

If men should be denied any say in whether their child lives or dies, then to be consistent, women should be denied any say in whether a father should have any legal or monetary responsibility for raising that child.

Bring that up and it becomes quite obvious that such arguments are completely inconsistent.

Posted by maureen on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 12:02 PM (EST):

If life is so bad for the disabled that they should not be born, than once I developed severe RA as a teenager, I should have been put down (like a dog).

The flip side to the author’s argument (not Jennifer’s) is the problem of child support. If a woman gets pregnant and the “father” doesn’t want the child, he should be able to argue (according to pro-choicers… I’m not at all interested in this) that the woman should have an abortion. If she CHOOSES to keep the child, he should not be required to pay for child support because it was her choice. In fact, the male’s responsibility for any child rearing expenses are dependent solely upon the mother’s choice… which directly contradicts the logic proposed by most in the pro-choice community (“don’t force me to deal with raising a child if I don’t want one based on your beliefs about abortion”)

Posted by Amanda on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 10:58 AM (EST):

PERSPECTIVE is:
“Women constitute 18 percent of the state legislatures, 17 percent of state executives, 9 percent of county governing boards, and 14 percent of mayors and city councils.” - http://ann.sagepub.com/content/515/1/63

Hmm, so that means, at best, men constitute 82% of those in public office . . . so if 77% of those apposing abortion are men, doesn’t that mean their argument is really ignorant? (not that it ism’t ignorant in the first place).

Posted by Amanda on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 10:48 AM (EST):

Am, I wrong, or is it not true that there is a higher percentage of men in office period? What percentage of those in office that SUPPORT abortion are men? Just curious to see numbers on that! :P

Posted by Quo Vadis on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 10:41 AM (EST):

Rebecca - Good point about the gender (male) of the Supreme Court which ruled on Roe v. Wade in 1973. Not only did they make a terrible ruling to inaugurate a horrible societal development in ‘legalized abortion’, but they based the ruling, in part, on fabricated statistics about ‘back room’ abortion butchery. These falsified anecdotal figures were revealed later by none other than the founder of NARAL, (abortionist doctor, later convert to the pro-life cause and to Catholicism), Dr. Bernard Nathanson, (also a man!)
.
The putrid and malicious story of legalized abortion in this country continues to reek like the fetid corpse it is, (and continues to yield as ‘medical waste’ in abortion clinics). However, IMO, the worst of the convoluted lies put forth to justify abortion is still found in the lost and dissolute Episcopal Church, whose seminary head Kathleen Ragsdale has the temerity to write about ‘the blessings of an abortion’. It is an abortion of logic and reality and humanity.
.
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/84424-blessing-of-abortion/

Posted by David M Paggi on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 10:40 AM (EST):

Really outstanding juxtaposition, which vividly illustrates that the “choice” being advocated as a response does not follow the premise. Both are non-sequiters, but seeing the same “logic”; i.e. arriving at the same conclusion (abortion) from opposite directions is illuminating.

It reminds me of the story of a man who asked his neighbor if he could borrow his axe. The neighbor replied, “no, I’ve got to go & make soup.” When the would-be borrower asked what making soup had to do with an axe, the man replied, “nothing, really, but if I don’t want to loan you my axe, one excuse is as good as another.”

Posted by Allison on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 10:30 AM (EST):

What causes a pause for pro-aborts is that, after our firstborn was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis and we wrangled with all the existential issues, we went on and had 6 more babies (There’s a 1:4 chance with each pregnancy.), one of whom was again born with it. Their “logic” goes out the window when visiting with us because it is obvious that we are not animals, that there is something more to humanity that cannot be quantified, that all life has truth, beauty, and goodness. Their argument that Jen highlights here is merely a bumper sticker or a shout at a rally, because once discussion begins, it falls apart.

Posted by Claire on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 9:56 AM (EST):

I’m pro-life, and I’m angry. I’m furious that millions of babies have been killed through abortion, and that there is a legal sanction for this. My blood boils when I think about it, and I’m sure many other pro-life people feel the same way.

Posted by Kathleen Basi on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 9:49 AM (EST):

@Kathleen, re anger on pro-choice blogs: a lot of pro-life blogs are angry, too. There’s a lot of anger in general in our society.

Posted by Thomas F on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 9:29 AM (EST):

No one really knows what it’s like to be ANYONE else. Does that mean we should never make any laws or decisions that effect anyone else? If so, let’s just abandon all laws and therefore all civilization.

Posted by Kathleen on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 9:21 AM (EST):

Posted by BF on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 9:04 AM (EST):One thing I notice time and again is how angry a lot of pro-abortion blogs and comments are. It saddens me that there is so much anger. It would be hard to live with yourself being angry all the time.”
******************************************
Sometimes anger covers up hurt.

Posted by BF on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 9:04 AM (EST):

One thing I notice time and again is how angry a lot of pro-abortion blogs and comments are. It saddens me that there is so much anger. It would be hard to live with yourself being angry all the time.

Posted by Claire on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 9:02 AM (EST):

Fetishizing? Are you kidding me? And I am so sick of hearing about “anti-choice”. I’m in favor of all kinds of choices. Especially the choice of a basic fundamental right such as being born, one that gets made on behalf of babies who can’t speak for themselves.

Posted by theresa mason on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 8:32 AM (EST):

Those pro choisers and Hitler have something in common.

Posted by Kathleen on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 8:32 AM (EST):

I see the same logic repeated everywhere in comment boxes: it’s better for the child to not be born into poverty, suffering, a single family home, etc, etc.
As if a human life has no intrinsic worth or right to exist outside of a “perfect” setting.By that logic, Jesus, shouldn’t have come into the world either.Single teenaged mom, born in a trough,family running from the law, undocumented immigrants to Egypt….
And we are all born with a huge disability, Original Sin.

Posted by JQ Tomanek on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 8:12 AM (EST):

Yet another proof for me that if you reject faith, reason will be rejected in short order or as Mark Shea says in more simple language, “Sin makes you stupid.”

The call for pro-choicers to be consistent is a good place to start.

Posted by barbara on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 8:11 AM (EST):

As I read this my daughter with Down syndrome is in her jumpy toy digesting breakfast. Have I mentioned that she wasn’t supposed to be able to eat without lots of therapy? Have I mentioned that she wasn’t supposed to make consonant sounds without intervention? But she’s babbling away at me expressing how much her toy displeases her because she can not get it into her mouth. Yet, if I were a different kind of person I would have been scared into discarding this very functional, extremely happy child as though she were a faulty car.

Posted by Kathleen2 on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 8:04 AM (EST):

I wonder if they’d also argue that women shouldn’t be able to oppose circumcision?

Extend the logic even further: These “feminists” must then also stop voicing their opinion about gay marriage unless they are gay, about African-American issues unless they are black, about immigration issues unless they are an immigrant, etc. It’s utter foolishness. Abortion affects everyone in society, not just pregnant women.

Posted by Anne on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 7:50 AM (EST):

Hurrah! Way to be bold with love and truth, Jennifer!

Posted by Rebecca on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 7:50 AM (EST):

Speaking of men making decisions for women: 100% of the Supreme Court justices who decided the famous Roe vs. Wade case were men, who could not possibly know what it would be like to be a pregnant woman who wants her baby, but is pressured by a boyfriend to abort. I have never understood why feminists pull out the whatever per cent of men who support life for unborn women, but do not reflect on the 100% of men who made that landmark decision.

Posted by New Catholic on Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 7:42 AM (EST):

You hit the nail on the head. All Christians (especially all Catholics) should be opposed to abortion. However, I do think perception counts greatly in this media saturated environment and the pro-life message is so much more powerful when it is women of all ages who are on the front lines along with the men. Sadly, not enough of us of either gender are dedicated enough to overturn this greatest threat to human rights of the last and current century.

As the mother of not one but two children with disabilities (daughter with cerebral palsy, son with Down syndrome), I can say that as much as I know about raising them I know NOTHING about what it’s like to be them. My daughter surprises me daily with her strength and courage, but the reality is that she doesn’t believe she is anything special. She inspires countless others, yet to her it’s no big deal.

I often feel sorry for parents who don’t have the experience of special needs in their family. I am certain that our experiences are much richer and more meaningful than that of many “normal” families.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Jennifer Fulwiler

Jennifer Fulwiler is a writer and speaker who converted to Catholicism after a life of atheism. She's a contributor to the books The Church and New Media and Atheist to Catholic: 11 Stories of Conversion, and is writing a book based on her personal blog, ConversionDiary.com. She and her husband live in Austin, TX with their five young children, and were featured in the nationally televised reality show Minor Revisions. You can follow her on Twitter at @conversiondiary.